It's under-exposed and over-developed. I mis-spoke in my earlier response to you, Paul. Sorry. The negative is thin. There are bare spots.
Thanks, Paul. On 5/2/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If there's no detail in the shadows, it's probably underexposed. If it > was overexposed, you would lose the highlight detail. However, the > large grain seems to suggest overdevelopment, unless it's an extreme > crop. Is the negative very thin? Are there large areas of bare acetate, > such as in the hair? That would indicate underexposure. Black hair on > an overexposed neg would show considerable detail, but the face and > wall would have very little detail. > Paul > On May 2, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > > > On 5/2/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Interesting pose and composition. I like it. However the shadow detail > >> is all blocked up, and the image is a bit dark overall. It may have > >> been overdeveloped, but it's hard to say without seeing the neg. > >> However, if there's detail in the neg, you can bring it back with an > >> appropriate scan and some ps work. > > Thanks, Paul. Unfortunately, there is no shadow detail on the neg. I > > believe it's been over-exposed and over developed. Shel responded > > with a lengthy critique and I'll try to address those issues in my > > response to him. So stay tuned. > > > > Thanks again! > > > > > > -- > > Scott Loveless > > http://www.twosixteen.com > > > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com
